Why I don't care for separate factory-applied grabs

[peteski]

I borrowed Daniel's photo because it nicely illustrates the problem on the otherwise nice model.



Not only the grabs are too thick (which I could possibly overlook), but they seem to stick out about a scale foot or two above the shell. Not very realistic.  When modelers install these on their models, they install they own separate grabs much closer to the surface of the shell.

[tehachapifan]

I tend to agree, though they don't look too bad in the photo. I really like the pre-drill dimple approach we've seen on a few models now.

[ednadolski]

Not only the grabs are too thick (which I could possibly overlook)

Seriously?   Scale grabirons would be 0.005" diameter -- have you ever tried to work with parts that small?  Or drilled the right sized holes for them?   But I should hope at the least that you could 'overlook' that, since N scale diesels actually have very few details that are genuinely to scale. Start with handrails and stanchions, and if that's not enough for you then how about couplers (TSCs being the exception, but no model is ever going to have those as the factory coupler).

but they seem to stick out about a scale foot or two above the shell. Not very realistic.

Hardly looks like a "scale foot or two" to me.  Have you measured it?  In any case, it seem like something that could be readily adjusted in manufacturing -- i.e. an implementation defect rather than a design flaw.   Hardly a reason to dis on the whole idea of separate grabirons, as your subject line seems to do.

And exactly what do you expect for "realistic" anyway?  I've listed just a few examples, but N (like pretty much every other scale) is necessarily filled with compromises on scale dimensions.  There are many reasons for this, some good and some less so as I am sure you are well aware.  So rather than gripe about some perceived notion of "realism", on the whole I think manufacturers ought to be thanked and encouraged when they take the initiative to make genuine improvements in the way models are made.

Perhaps you would prefer to go back to shaving off those oh-so "realistic" cast-on grabirons, but then again that might take away from your time spent on whining about upvotes   

Ed

[peteski]

Seriously?   Scale grabirons would be 0.005" diameter -- have you ever tried to work with parts that small?  Or drilled the right sized holes for them?   But I should hope at the least that you could 'overlook' that, since N scale diesels actually have very few details that are genuinely to scale. Start with handrails and stanchions, and if that's not enough for you then how about couplers (TSCs being the exception, but no model is ever going to have those as the factory coupler).


Hardly looks like a "scale foot or two" to me.  Have you measured it?  In any case, it seem like something that could be readily adjusted in manufacturing -- i.e. an implementation defect rather than a design flaw.   Hardly a reason to dis on the whole idea of separate grabirons, as your subject line seems to do.

And exactly what do you expect for "realistic" anyway?  I've listed just a few examples, but N (like pretty much every other scale) is necessarily filled with compromises on scale dimensions.  There are many reasons for this, some good and some less so as I am sure you are well aware.  So rather than gripe about some perceived notion of "realism", on the whole I think manufacturers ought to be thanked and encouraged when they take the initiative to make genuine improvements in the way models are made.

Perhaps you would prefer to go back to shaving off those oh-so "realistic" cast-on grabirons, but then again that might take away from your time spent on whining about upvotes   

Ed

No, I have not measure it - my trained eyes tell me that they stick out way too far.    Yes, 0.005" would be difficult to work with (and the actual wire would probably have to be 0.003" to accommodate the paint thickness.  That is why I prefer the molded-on ones on N scale equipment. To me a general representation looks better than over-scale free-standing ones.  No shaving-off needed. Whininig?  No, just an opinion brought on (again) by that photo.  Sounds like I touched a nerve - sorry.

Funny how we all see things very differently.

[AKNscale]

I agree that we should give the manufacturers credit for detailing, though I actually enjoy doing some of the details like grabs myself(I also feel like I do a better job). Personally I'd rather spend less on the model and more time detailing it myself, but I think I'm in the minority in that mindset.

[JanesCustomTrain]

but they seem to stick out about a scale foot or two above the shell

Yes, they do stick out a bit too far but I for myself have "a bigger problem" with the totally different blue of the handrails. Or sunshades which are not mounted straight. Or with CSX models in general   Oh, not to forget IM, I don't like IM products at all    (yes, I am aware the model on the picture is not IM)

Jane   

[nstars]

Peteski, I have to agree with you. When I saw the pictures (thanks Daniel) I had the same thought. It makes the front of the engine too busy.

BTW, the picture also show how difficult it is to get the handrails correct. I assume this is caused by the camera.

Marc

[Philip H]

I've got one of those FVM diesels with the baggie of grabs and the dimples.  In the 4 or 5 years I've owned it I have yet to apply the grabs.  Lazy?  More like distracted by small people, but my intent is to do it eventually.  I actually prefer stand off grabs on my locos.  And while I wasn't planning to buy one of those for myself, I am rethinking my decision based largely on that photo.  Frankly the handrail stanchions bug me more then the grabs.

[sundowner]

I have seen Scale Trains ET44 in person at the NTS and I did not notice what Peteski was ranting on about. May I suggest that instead of looking at them on a monitor that makes them look like a HO model or worse O scale, see them in person before passing judgment.

[tom mann]

Keep it civil, guys.

I agree with Peteski in general, but the example he posted is probably the best implementation of pre-installed separate grabs yet - so @scaletrains should be complimented.

[Rossford Yard]

Went to look at a few of my Atlas locos.  Agree those molded on grab irons are too small, the applied ones to large. What to do?

Is there any chance molding tech has improved enough to add more depth to the molded on ones? Maybe molded solid with a circular rail appropriate distance off shell, connected by a think layer of plastic to make it all one piece, and perhaps the modeler could scrape out the air space in between with a poke from an exacto knife?

They might do that.  I know few apply the add on handrails that Kato provides on their Dash 9 locos, by looking at mine, and those of several trains at train shows.  So, maybe any semi ready to run loco needs to be ready to run......

[coosvalley]

Molded on grabs just look like blobs to me. They don't give me the impression of grab irons. While separately applied grabs are usually oversized, so are the blobs. I'm amazed that anyone would prefer an oversized blob that does not look like what it's supposed to over an oversized separately applied detail that at least looks like what it is supposed to be.

If you don't like the looks of them, you could always replace them with closer to scale wire..And if details don't matter to you, maybe pick up some Readers Digest locos

MFR's:...Keep the separately applied details coming!

[ednadolski]

No, I have not measure it - my trained eyes tell me that they stick out way too far.    Yes, 0.005" would be difficult to work with (and the actual wire would probably have to be 0.003" to accommodate the paint thickness.  That is why I prefer the molded-on ones on N scale equipment. To me a general representation looks better than over-scale free-standing ones.  No shaving-off needed. Whininig?  No, just an opinion brought on (again) by that photo.  Sounds like I touched a nerve - sorry.

Funny how we all see things very differently.

Sorry for getting snippy.   Yes you did trigger a peeve of mine (guess I am becoming a snowflake in my old age) because you've chosen to exaggerate what is a minor point at most,  and I am pretty sure that you know better.

Frankly I think your claim is way off base.  A "scale foot or two" is 0.075" - 0.150".   The pics don't look anywhere near that.  If those drop grabs are say 18 scale inches wide then then one scale foot would be 2/3 the length of the grab.  Two scale feet would be double that (or 1.33x the grabiron width). Not even close.

If I were the manufacturer and you called me with that complaint and showed me that pic as confirmation (saying it "nicely illustrates the problem" while not bothering to actually measure) I would have to conclude that despite your "trained eyes" you simply didn't know what you were talking about.

(I might also add that you've picked a decidedly unfavorable image -- strong backlit shadows cast on the lightly colored area of an otherwise darkly painted model.  Of course that's going to exaggerate any oversized parts.)

Aside from the added manufacturing cost, actual scale-sized grabs would not look right on an OOTB model because of the contrast with the oversized handrails.  Then you would have the modelers who say they don't want to pay extra for detailing that they cannot see, and others who complain that the scale parts are too delicate (including the ones that let a child or a cat get hold of the model).

IMHO the issue here isn't the model, it's a perception bias.  We've become so used to seeing over-sized and cast-on parts that when something different comes along it doesn't look right at first.   This should not be a barrier to improvements -- if it is, then we all should just go back to rapido couplers and be done with it. 


Ed

[jmlaboda]

Peteski, I feel your pain!!!

I was kind of interested in the Scale Trains "Big Blow" when news that they would be produced came out.  But seeing the models really turned me off, at least in regards to Scale Trains, because the grabs stand out so much further than they should.  Yet these guys are proud of their product and should be patted on the back?  I don't think so...



As soon as I saw the model I thought to myself, "These things are an eye sore!!!"

No one has brought it up but Rapido Trains seems to be able to do grabs right with their locomotives and cars proving to be outstanding... how come others can't do the same?

I would assume that some sort of "jig" is used to get the so-called "proper placement" of the grabs to begin with... it is not any different really than what most of us would resort to if we had need of adding separate grabs.  Having the right size of jig would not be all that difficult to do but honestly I would settle on molded on handrails compared to anything else if it means not having something that looks so bad as many of these models do.  It is a "NO DEAL" thing for me when it comes to these separate parts.  Makes me glad that I don't model the modern era... I would be passing up on a lot of otherwise beautiful models because the separate parts looks so very bad.

[Rossford Yard]

Frankly I think your claim is way off base.  A "scale foot or two" is 0.075" - 0.150".   

No real interest in the locos, but as an architect, I am sitting here looking at my engineers scale, and those grabs look about 0.15" off the shell to me.  Of course, I doubt the proto is any more than one foot, and probably a bit less (only takes a few inches to get a hand around the grab)

Again, I think the problem with molded on grabs is they are just straight lines on the models I checked.  Maybe if they could capture more of the rounded grab handle look they would be the best solution?

I will have to take a closer look at some of the Rapido locos.  Can anyone post a pic of how those look?